Managing Director Bescom Vs Sri K Srinivas — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Managing Director Bescom Vs Sri K Srinivas — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25465-DB WA No. 419 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

WRIT APPEAL NO. 419 OF 2024 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 009

GENERAL MANAGER

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

ADMINISTRATION AND HRD., NOW DIRECTED AS A & HR, KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 009

MANAGING DIRECTOR

THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 009

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. RAKSHITHA D.J, ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25465-DB WA No. 419 of 2024

HC-KAR

AND:

SRI. K. SRINIVAS S/O LATE T. KRISHNAMURTHY, R/AT NO.1477/2, BACHAPPA BUILDING NEAR CHANDRAPPA HOTEL, C BLOCK, SAHAKARNAGAR POST, KODIGEHALLI, BANGALORE-560 092.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. NAGESH S, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07/12/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.16215/2011, AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25465-DB WA No. 419 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present intra court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16215/2011.

Sri. K. Srinivasa-the respondent delinquent employee was proceeded with the departmental enquiry for following charges:

" Charge 1: Before accounting the amount received from the Counter Cashier into the General Cash Book, you failed to verify whether the starting and ending receipt numbers of the day's receipt book and the total amount were correct and whether the Counter Cashier had verified at the end.

Charge 2: In the day's end report, if there was a canceled receipt or receipt book, you did not verify whether the three canceled receipts were attached to the book, and you failed to check if the original and duplicate of the computer

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25465-DB WA No. 419 of 2024

HC-KAR

receipt were attached to the RCB book and verified by the Counter Cashier and Cash Officer. Even though there was a canceled receipt amount in the day's end report, you failed to ask for the cancelled receipt from the Counter Cashier, thus committing dereliction of duty.

Charge 3: Before closing the cash, you did not ensure that the corrections in the receipt book were verified by the Counter Cashier and attested by the Cash Officers, and you failed to bring this matter to the attention of the superiors, thus committing dereliction of duty."

The only charge against the respondent

delinquent employee was improper supervision of his sub-

ordinate employee who had misappropriated

Rs.5,22,194/- recovered against the bill.

The learned Single Judge has assigned that the enquiry officer without conducting enquiry in proper manner has come to the conclusion and has based the

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:25465-DB WA No. 419 of 2024

HC-KAR

enquiry report only on the basis of findings recorded by in the special audit report.

The charge ought to have been proved independently and the finding on guilt should not have been based only on the basis of findings recorded in the special audit report.

In any view of the matter, the charge was only for not properly supervising his sub-ordinate officer who had misappropriated and for his sub-ordinate's act, the disciplinary authority has inflicted the punishment on petitioner of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect.

The learned Single Judge therefore has held that neither the report of the enquiry office nor the imposition of punishment on the petitioner sustainable in law.

We find no error in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. We are also of

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:25465-DB WA No. 419 of 2024

HC-KAR

the opinion that for the allegation of improper supervision

of sub-ordinate, such a punishment could not have been inflicted on the petitioner, that too on the basis of the findings recorded in the special audit report. We therefore dismiss this appeal and affirm the impugned judgment

and order passed by the learned Single Judge.

SD/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22